[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Co-operating with Architectural Forms
- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:47:01 -0500
- In-reply-to: <021301c1aadb$ab06e4c0$0301a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
- Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
- References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@pop.intergate.ca> <E16WTk0-0003aB-00@server2000.ebizhostingsolutions.com> <021301c1aadb$ab06e4c0$0301a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
On Thursday 31 January 2002 11:48 pm, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Yes I largely agree. You could define your "isa" link to be based on
> the value of an arbitrary attribute, I guess this is what AF does,
> for example.
Yep.
> At the end of the day what is important is that we either have
> private agreements or agreed upon conventions for how document is
> processed, even from a syntactic point of view. So what AF might do,
> to give another example, might be to return the value of an
> arbitrary attribute as the name of the element, etc.
Right. The important thing is to recognize that we *agree* how to
process things, how to interpret them and in some applications, what
the various tags "mean". Nothing intrinsic in XML provides anything
here. GI's, even with namespaces, only work by application convention.
So, to bring this all back in a circle. I dislike namespaces (or more
precisely, the standardization of namespaces) because they complicate
things (look at all the W3C specs) and *don't give you anything you
couldn't already do without the standardization*. You and I could have
agreed to use gi prefixes for exchanging data, and got along equally
as well.
|
